Carl Zeiss has announced the Apo Sonnar T* 2/135 telephoto lens, which it will be showing at the Photokina trade show in Cologne later this month. This premium manual focus optic uses a floating focus system to maintain high image quality at all distances down to 0.8m. It uses anomalous partial dispersion glass elements to minimize chromatic aberrations, resulting in an apochromatic design. It will be available in mounts for Canon and Nikon SLRs from December 2012, at a recommended retail price of approximately €1600 / $2000 (excluding VAT).

Press release:

Carl Zeiss presents compact telephoto lens

Apo Sonnar T* 2/135 offers new creative possibilities

OBERKOCHEN, September 7, 2012 - Carl Zeiss is presenting the new Apo Sonnar T* 2/135 during photokina in Cologne – Carl Zeiss’ longest medium telephoto lens in the range of high-quality SLR lenses. With the Apo Sonnar T* 2/135, the company is substantially extending the creative possibilities available in the medium tele range. Photographers and HD video cinematographers now have a total of thirteen SLR lenses to choose, with focal lengths of 15 to 135 millimeters. Carl Zeiss will exhibit at photokina in Cologne, the world’s leading trade fair for imaging technology, from September 18-23 at stand B011 in hall 2.1.

The Apo Sonnar T* 2/135 is the ideal lens for capturing detailed images from long distances, such as the skyline at sunset, a leopard in the zoo, or a pop star on a faraway stage. The new lens offers outstanding clarity of detail, high contrast and high resolution at any aperture. This mix of attributes makes it the perfect choice for portraits in advertising, fashion and lifestyle, as well as for landscape and reportage photography.

After putting the lens through its paces in New York, Magnum photographer Christopher Anderson was clearly impressed: “I am delighted with the performance of this new lens. It is relatively compact for a telephoto lens. Its image resolution and quality are outstanding, and there is a touch of magic in the way the light is refracted by the lens elements. I took some amazing photos, including some in poor light conditions.”

The Apo Sonnar T* 2/135 can capture subjects up to a scale of 1:4. It has been built based on Carl Zeiss’s proven “floating elements” design. A special variable arrangement of the lens elements delivers excellent images over the entire focusing range, from 0.8 meters to infinity. The compact telephoto lens features eleven elements in eight groups. Because this lens is an apochromat, chromatic abberations (axial chromatic abberations) are corrected with elements of special glass materials with anomalous partial dispersion. The chromatic aberrations are therefore significantly below the defined limits. Bright-dark transitions in the image, and especially highlights, are reproduced almost completely free of color artifacts.

As with all other SLR lenses in the ZE and ZF.2 series, the Carl Zeiss T* anti-reflective coating as well as the sophisticated treatment of the elements’ edges with a deep-black special lacquer make the Apo Sonnar T* 2/135 resistant to reflections and stray light. Another advantage for the user is the large rotation angle of 268°, which enables ultra-precise focusing.

The Apo Sonnar T* 2/135 is equipped with an all-metal barrel, which enables long-lasting use with high-quality results. It will be available with F bayonet (ZF.2) and with EF bayonet (ZE).

The lens will begin shipping in December 2012 at a recommended retail price of approximately €1.600 or US$2.000 (excluding VAT)*.

Comments

To those who are judging a lens that they don't even own:This lens is pure Magic! Some people argue that Manual Focus is an issue, but let me tell you.. it's the last thing a real Photographer could give a damn for.

The Sharpness you get with this lens is incredible. Besides, the Bokeh is fabulous!!!! The fact that it is 135mm will also bring fresh air into your Photography, because you will be looking at Subjects much differently. Believe me, I purchased this lens from B&H, and I thought I'd just test it out and return it. I was wrong! I fell in love after I got the hang of it.

I must note, it does take some patience to figure it out. Electronic Shutter Curtain is advised for this focal length, and Mirror-Up if your Shutter Speed is not fast. A Nikon D810 is perfect with this lens.

Yes the existing Nikon & Canon 135's are excellent. But the don't offer what CZ does in this case; colour that matches all the other lenses in their line-up. I think that with a lens designed for MF a cinematographer who already uses other CZ lenses will welcome this as a great addition to the line.

Some photographers prefer MF for some applications. I shoot 85% of my stuff with old Contax, & Super Takumar lenses. I can see why this lens will appeal to some people. I'm sure that there is always room for (in this case minor improvements) over a lens designed in the mid 90's with new technology.

It just isn't for everyone, in the same way that a Ferrari 458 isn't for everyone!

the point is that the first generation of the Canon's 24-70 was not the most impressive peace of glass, where the existing Canon 135 f/2 is spectacular in every way and I think that one can hardly be improved further ... there is no need for that! The worst thing for this specific Carl Zeiss offer is that the latest 70-200 f/2.8 alternatives from Canon and Nikon cost the same, they are optically superb and conveniently flexible. Well, indeed they all had an maximum aperture of f/2.8, but the difference in the depth of field they produced doesn't look so vast at 135mm .... so tough call for the manual Carl Zeiss Apo Sonnar T* 2/135 I think !

The point is that if one design a new lens and set up manufacturing process, the cost of doing that is much more expensive today than 10-15 years ago in dollar amount (dollar is considerably weaker than 10-15 years ago). They will charge accordingly.

Will be interesting to see how this lens fares on the market. The Canon 135/2 image quality is so good that it is hard to imagine to get any better in terms of practical application. So what is left for the Zeiss is build quality and handling and I am sure for some who don't need AF this is worth the money.

If you prefer manual focus just switch off that feature of your existing Canon 135/2L lens. I can only agree with you ... that Canon lens is a top performer and will be hard to beat, even wide open produces tack sharp images. My advice is .... keep that lens if you own it, or buy one if you do not, instead of investing extra $1000 for the Carl Zeiss alternative, and maybe you can buy some flowers for your wife for that price difference ... it will be a better investment!!! Unless your wife is ... Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton !!!

In place of optical challenges typical of HD cinema or daytime photography, this lens having 11 elements in 8 groups, would like to see a series of very demanding full field of view, full aperture astrophotos taken with this assembly.

Imaging stellar regions such as the dark background field star cluster Coma Berenices, areas with both bright and faint nebula such as the constellation Orion with Barnard’s Loop, dense star fields with a multitude of colors much like the Rho Ophiuchus nebula region, the Large Magellanic Cloud, ending with flair challenging images with a bright object placed in the corner of the field of view (FOV), set in a dark sky environment, e.g. Venus and the winter Milky Way.

Some manufacturers like Canon can offers precision Matte Focusing Screens which are almost useless for general use but a must have option for those who use their lenses manually .... like in this case with the latest offer from Zeiss. So the lack of manual focus in most wide angle lenses is understandable, mostly because even wide open those lenses produces very wide depth of field, so as the working distances for most of the macro lenses can allows for a precise manual focusing. Once you have a portrait lens and a subject in a distance of more than few meters, then the manual focusing can become a real challenge for many, except if you have installed one of those precision Matte Focusing Screens . I have no doubt that the latest Carl Zeiss Apo Sonnar T* 2/135 is a magnificent lens, but the lack of Auto Focus can be a major drawback ...

sorry....a magnificent lens? Have you seen it, did you hold it? Did you attach it to your camera and took it to a photo shoot? Did you come back with amazing images that you want to share and explain why this lens is so special and .... magnificent?

I think based on how high performance typical 135mm F/2.0 lens are we can assume it will be magnificent if not near magnificent. It seems to be a focal length and aperture that is commonly the sharpest of lens available. Canons, Nikons, Sonys(F/1.8) lens are all blisteringly sharp lens.

It actually IS a great lens - I had in in hand briefly and talked to Zeiss guys. It performs incredibly wide open. There is a reason why it has 'APO' in it's name - there are practically no uncorrected chromatic aberrations left even wide open. And it focuses down to 0.8m. Do not ask me whether it is better than XY brand. I hope it is, but I have no idea - I am not an SLR shooter :)

To get the focus right wide open and close it is indeed important to have a proper focusing screen installed or use live-view.

Problem is, DOF at f2 is very thin - MF will be difficult. Canon's 135/2 L is an APO although the Zeiss might be better for that matter - but the Canon has very fast USM and already very sharp - at less than half the Zeiss price...

Wow, I guess for those deep-pocketed enough to stick it out with the flipping mirror-type DSLRs, a single focal 135mm lens priced at US$2,000 is a bona-fide bargain. They should have asked 5 Gs for it, really.

Why would a company bother making a press release like this without some stunning images shot with the lens to back it up? Their website (lenses.zeiss.com) has none.

Maybe it's more about an idea than function.

Almost all AF lenses have manual focus as well. (Nikon 1 are the only exception I know of.)

Why are people so passionate about such a silly difference? You can take perfectly great pictures using AF and you can do the same with MF. There are challenges to both ways, and I wouldn't necessarily call one easier. Although with this aperture/focal length, AF has some precision advantages.

EDIT: Correction! There is a single shot available at full size from a 5Dmkiii at f3.5. Not bad. Nice bokeh. But not as sharp as the Nikon 135/2. However the Nikon has bad LoCA, and this appears to have none. I can fix LoCA in post, but I can't add resolution info--I'll pass on this one.

In the old days we would go to a camera store with our own camera, talk to a sales person, handle the lens, shoot a few frames (with film) and draw our own conclusions about a lens. Maybe we would even rent it for a couple of days to get a real feel for it. Now we listen to strangers make a pronouncement based on a press release and a single image on the web and wonder if we should take a chance on the lens. What a state of affairs for the manufacturers.

Maybe this lens is not destined for use by amateurs who want cheaper and depend on auto focus.

How dare a company not cater to the needs and wants of the huddled masses.

Yearly capital depreciation deductions and business deductions in general make investing 2 grand for a lens that serves a need a non issue- and considering all the daddies out there using 2200$ zooms to shoot their 7 year old soccer stars -probably a non issue regardless. Oh that's right, those zooms focus for them. Lol.

Actually, CZ make a point to make their lenses "look" the same.. this is esp. important since they are targeting budget cine market where you need to go from one lens to another, but, want the output to appear similar (in terms of colour, contrast, etc). If it performs anything like their 100/2 Makro-Planar, then it should be a knock out lens, whether its worth it to you is another issue.

For a macro lens, manual focus is just great ... can work, but for a portrait lens the lack of Auto focus can create some major challenges especially when the lens is used outdoor at fully open aperture, where the focusing field often can be less than few millimeters .... hm. Then lets get real here ... the Canon 135mm f/2L is simply phenomenal lens as most Canon users knows ... and has some pretty good auto focus. On top of that it is far cheaper in comparison .

90% of photographs are, even slightly, edited today and when viewed on the web, you will never tell a difference between a 135L and this Zeiss - so what is the point? 135L is only 50% of Zeiss's price and it has AF, which will shine on bodies like 1Dx and 5D MKIII.

What is the point to have an expensive MF lens on a body with a spectacular AF system where you can use AF 135L lens?

Well, I can talk for myself: I think this is a great portrait lens for both FF/crop bodies, and I focus portraits manually. At the moment I am using 1.8/105mm AI Nikkor on a D7000, and probably will never be able to justify this lens and D800, for example, but who can, should have a great portrait lens. Zeiss 2/100mm macro is another option. Both can close-crop face details.

i dont know, i have no canon but i would take this over the nikon version for sureits not only optical quality, which i guess(!) is better then the nikonits also the fact that its a manual lens, so there are only the minimum parts thats needed to operate the lens in it. no motors etc

that alone attracts me from a design point of view, but also from the failsafe point of veiw, and from material costs view

i mean you say a canon af lens cost half of what the manual zeiss lens cost you, and that tells me how superior this zeiss lens must be material-wise

i mean i know that might sound naive

its like leica, if you want to have the best of the best, you have to pay the real price, there are too much expert mechanics too much expensive materials and too much quality control by also experts involved to go down with the prices, i wonder what percentage of the price of a leica lens is just for the guy that does the quality control of the glass lenses

To everyone who thinks it's a stupid move to go up against the 135 f/2.0L - Zeiss are making this lens for different mounts, not just Canon. Thus there are many people for which the 135L is not an option!

Plus, there's the fact that Zeiss glass blows away Canon L glass. The difference in sharpness, contrast, and distortion isn't even close. I never thought I would thumb my nose at L lenses, but after shooting with them side-by-side, there was no comparison.

I do find it a bit odd that some people down there who have a Canon 135L are saying 'why would they make this lens, how can it get better than the 135L'. Are they suggesting that no one should ever try to make a 135mm lens again?

To say something is perfect... kinda means you've given up on improving, I'm sure Canon haven't.

"Are they suggesting that no one should ever try to make a 135mm lens again?"

You could make one that was faster. You could make one that was cheaper. You could maybe make one that was ever-so-slightly-better at the same price point. But making one that might maybe be ever-so-slightly better at twice the price point is ridiculous. It's not like there's a lack of focal lengths out there to work at, with much more room for improvement.

Think Canon wil do a MK2 135 f2 (perhaps f1.8) with IS but their in no rush and it would also be a huge jump in price compared to the current (and excellent ) 135 f2. Difficult to improve when you get to this level.

I'm sure this new Zeiss will be a cracker - HOWEVER its twice the price of Canon & Nikon best 135 lenses - perhaps, just perhaps it might just be a shade better being newer but this remains far from certain -(example - Canon 'soft' 50 1.4 is better than the more expensive Zeiss and the Nikon G 50 1.4 is simply better all round) this Zeiss is simply too expensive, perhaps if it were a REAL Zeiss lens made in German you could understand the price point. Sorry this will only sell to Zeiss nutballs - then again that's the whole point.

So if I want a real Zeiss it's gonna cost me $4000 ? No thanks. crazy money when pretty well ALL 135 lenses (even cheap ones) can provide sharp images. As I said one for the Zeiss 'nutballs' - eveyone else stand clear.

I wonder, why not also on Sony A-mount? Well, since Sony already offers the Sony/Zeiss Sonnar T* 135 F1.8 AF and the Sony 135mm f/2.8 Smooth Transition Focus, both fantastic lenses, they saw no need for that one ( although the 2.0 f.l. is interesting ).

Its just Zeiss doing a Leica and charging their fans a lot for a good, perhaps great piece of glass, can't blame them but I also can't see Q's forming around the block to buy one. The traditional 135 lens is pretty easy to make and good (cheap !! ) examples can be found from Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Olympus and of course Minolta as well as Vivitar, Tamron, Hoya/ Tokina. Think in a blind real life test they wouldn't be a lot between any of them. Brought my Canon FD 135 f3.5 (ok - a lot slower) for less than £30 - sharp ? Oh yes !

Sad Joe... I think you maybe correct. It maybe difficult, if not impossible to tell the difference between images shot of the same subject under same conditions but with different lens brands. The differences may not be evident unless you blow up the image to the size of huge posters and/or pixel peep.

who would try to mount this lens on a walkman or playstation? or what you mean? its an electronic company, zeiss wants to sell them their cheap lenses with their nametag on it, no need for serious lenses on sonys hehe

To "inevitable crafts studio" - Hehehe... ignorance is bliss! I'm sure you know that Zeiss has a contract with Sony and supplies them several high-end lenses then sold as "Sony/Zeiss", right? Anyway, today the photo/video world is nothing but an "electronics world"! Guess who's in advantage now...?

Yes the Canon is a great lens. The Zeiss will draw differently and I'm sure flare will be well handled like all their lenses. If I were an amateur looking for this focal length I would get the Canon. As a pro there is no question I'll buy this, but only after testing it first. The microcontrast on the Zeiss, coma, flare, and the rest of the troublesome things are usually better than all but Leica. Also this lens has a reproduction ratio of 1:4. Can't wait to get my hands on it.

LOL! As an EX VW Golf owner I know what you mean and have vowed NEVER to buy another new new VW - I love classic VW's and will be out all day tomorrow in a 1968 Bay. As for Zeiss and Leica yes their glass might just (and I mean just) edge it but that's by no means certain. Test charts are one thing - I wonder just how many (how few) of the people posting here could tell which lens has been used to produce an actual print in a blind test - none I suspect. Simply put making a decent 135 lens is easy - making a fast lens less easy - but for £2000+ = their having a joke !

Well, that's just a bit too much German bashing. But then by looking at your gallery pictures you don't need any German (or rather Cosina Japan) glass anyway. Sorry for this but....what goes around, comes around....

Well, if they don't like a little mocking (not bashing by all means), they should look around and see that it is not 19th century anymore - only hobbyists make anything "manual-made", and everything has a useful computer inside. Which, BTW, must work forever.

You see the longer focal lengths don't allow for good bokeh because dof goes up as the focal length increases no matter the F stop. This is why crowds in the back of football players are often in focus. The photographers are using big zooms that can't blur the background.

DOF is *inversely* proportional to the square of the FL. A 100mm lens will have 1/4 the DOF of a 50mm at the same aperture and shooting distance. Longer FL = Less DOF = better background separation (but you need to move back to keep the same framing)

What neither of you has answered is that shorter focal lengths wide open produce better blurred backgrounds than longer focal lengths open to the same aperture.

And inevitable crafts studio: it's telephoto not telefocus. Won't touch your misspelling. (And I accept that English may not be your first tongue.)

Then scott_mcleod: longer lenses with the same aperture don't produce better bokeh. If that were the case people would exclaim over using 200mm F2.0s as portrait lenses. They don't; they choose 1.4 50mms and 1.4 85mm lenses.

Both: It's well understood that telephoto lenses flatten images--action movies use this trick. And that's a problem for good "bokeh". What that means is the background aint real out of focus. scott to give you some credit, what I think you're missing is that the focus fall off of a wide open say F2.0 50mm is faster than a wide open 135mm F/2.0 lens. And that fast change in out of focus helps with aesthetics.

I agree with others this is going to be a hard sell, as both Nikon and Canon have really excellent AF alternatives at that same focal length and aperture.

CZ's 100mm f2 Makro-Planar is more unique, and makes more sense.

But I do not agree that manual focus is that difficult even with current high res DSLRs. Would be better with a proper ground glass screen, but it is not that hard, and, in Nikon's case anyway, the electronic rangefinder is not as useless as some seem to think. A bit quirky, but there are "tricks". I do not find I need Liveview for conistent focus.

It's more for the video/movie people. Your canon is not the same in regard to manual focus, aperture rings. This is cheap alternative to cine lenses, although the distance scale is less stretched out than cine lens but much more than normal lens.

On the 5DII you could use the EG-S focusing screen, but even the standard screen wasn't so bad.

However, with lenses like the Zeiss ZE, focus confirm still works so you can if you want use the AF system to check your manual focus. Or you can use Liveview and zoom. The workflow is little different from using AF, with the focus confirm step happening before you take the photo rather than after when most people using AF seem to.

I don't understand this. I do find using a DSLR harder to focus than an SLR, but I do fine with a 180 2,8 AiS even with teleextender attached. You just get used to it. It's very easy in good light, and with bad light, just takes a bit more work.

I gave up on Autofocus lenses a long time ago and only have AiS lenses. Overall, they are much easier to use, but I'll admit, that AF lenses on the same camera do give sharper images about 60% of the time. When I'm spot on with MF, it is usually as good, but I'm usually off by a little. No matter though, as there are very few instances when pixel perfect sharpness is necessary. Studio photography is the only time I can think that it is necessary.

MF is complex because the 5D3 doesn't accept specialized focusing screens. So you have to deal with the stock screen which probably has a sensitivity of 2.8making it really hard to spot where the focus plane is for shooting distances longer than 2 meters.

I'm not sure why you think they don't work properly with modern DSLRs? Have you ever actually owned one? I've just sold my 5D MkII, but before I did the Zeiss 50mm/1.4 was by far my favourite lens. It wiped the floor with the Canon 50/1.4 which I owned for a month or two before selling on.

I also owned the 135 L and to be honest if I was in the market for a 135mm and the Zeiss was closer in price then, assuming it renders like some other Zeiss lenses, I would probably go for it rather than the Canon.

Autofocus is a convenience but the first thing I do is take autofocus off the shutter release and put it somewhere else, so I can do a quick AF to get close and then manually focus for the photo I want to take without the camera interfering. Maybe it depends on your perspective. For my first 20 years of shooting I didn't have AF and focusing has always been a natural action.

OK the point about the 5DIII and its focusing screen specifically is a fair point. But it is disingenuous to broaden that to "modern DSLRs". And it is by no means impossible to manually focus on the 5DIII, or use Liveview and the rear screen magnified, which is what people effectively do with autofocus when they push the shutter, allow AF to do its stuff, then playback and zoom in to "check focus".

Quite frankly, manually focusing means you normally have it right first time and there is no need to check focus after.

Have you tried to manually focus with a Zeiss lens? It is far from complex - turn (beautifully weighted) focus ring, job done. You can of course even use focus confirmation lights and beeps if you want to "check" that you've done it right. I use a manual focus 35mm all the time and love it

Light Pilgrim - on the one hand, how did you manage in the days before AF then? On the other hand, it's fair to say that people should use the right tool for the job. Those that need AF to nail a shot should use it. And given a 50mm manual was my walkaround lens, I did a lot more street shooting at that FL than landscape. If by saying having "eyes in focus" you mean everything else isn't, then that is a particular style of portraiture that doesn't define street shooting by any means. If you just meant that the subject had to be in sharp focus, well you really don't need AF for that even with only a second to react, if the manual focus action on the lens is a good one. And that is one of the strengths of Zeiss lenses.

njb311, yes - I know...I can use F.16 and everything will be in focus, not just eyes. Why then f/1.4 lens?

Before AF cameras were different. Below is from my conversiation with ZEISS: "For the EOS 5DMKIII as well as for the MarkII, we recommend to use a better focusing screen. Such focusing screens (with split-screen image and microprism collar) are offered by Brightscreen for both camera models. The new AF system of the MarkIII allows a more detailed micro adjustment, but the accuracy of any AF system is still not good enough to focus a f/1.4 lens (at full aperture) precisely enough for high expectations.

Please have also a look at this article on our website:lenses.zeiss.com/photo/en_DE/other/products/what_makes_th...

Manual focus with 50mm F1.4 is not a big deal, but manual focus on 135mm F2 lens is very difficult and hard with modern digital camera. I own 50mm/F1.4, 105mm/F1.8 and 135mm/F2, manual focus on a moving subject on low ligh is super hard with my 105mm/F1.8 and 135mmF2, lucky that my 135mmF2 comes with AF and I am selling my great but manual foucs 105mmF1.8, it is getting harder infoucs with my D800.Will pass on any manual focus lense beyong 85mm....135mm manual focus lens, no thanks!

Light Pilgrim, I'm sure you said f/16 just to be inflammatory. Given when you're focusing manually the aperture is at f/1.4 anyway, then yes of course you can nail a street shot wide open. Just because the lens has f/1.4 doesn't mean you use it for every shot. You can stop down a couple of clicks if the composition needs it or to give a bit of margin for error. It's about having the ability to use the tool.

And I think that is part of this MF vs AF discussion. People who have never learned and practised MF will find it difficult and then say it's impossible. Those who have will know it is far from impossible. The 5DIII is a particular case where Canon has decided not to make a focusing screen that is better for MF. As Zeiss said in their reply to you though, there is someone else who does. And your quote from Zeiss also said AF is not good enough at f/1.4 anyway. So I'm not sure what your point there was?

you've got quite an investment in this thread light pilgrim.Live view, are you serious, for street ...WHAT?

Are you even a street photographer, you sure dont sound like one.All I shoot is street, all I use is Zeiss, the other difference is I have pictures ...not sure what you have you dont even have a single Zeiss.You guys that talk for everyone else are ...all talk

Ah you do have one zeiss, apologies you should put it on something else if you cant see to focus, its your eyes and not someone elses that you are using. Also really poor choice in that 35 if its just for street. The 135 and you and your 5DIII have nothing in common here, just sell the bloody thing ..plenty of others want it.